Coverage of Oconee development lacking

Lee B. Becker

Posted: Monday, January 31, 2005

Your Jan. 21 story on commercial development in Oconee County was typical of the superficial coverage you give to development issues in the county. The story notes that commercial growth is concentrated along Epps Bridge Parkway and the intersection of Mars Hill and Hog Mountain roads, suggesting that is the result of some unpredictable, supernatural force.

It is the result of decisions made by county officials.

Had you covered the Jan. 4 Oconee County Commission meeting, you would have had the chance to report the comments of a Windy Creek subdivision resident who noted increased traffic along Mars Hill Road was the result of county planning, not of some uncontrollable force.

At that Jan. 4 meeting, commissioners voted 3-2 to rezone a piece of property from an office park classification to a commercial classification, despite previous designation of the property, which is close to Windy Creek residents, as a buffer against commercial development.

New Commissioner Jim Luke, consistent with his campaign promises, made the motion for the pro-development decision, which was supported by Commissioner Don Norris and Commission Chairman Melvin Davis. Newly elected Commissioner Chuck Horton argued the rezoning would only contribute to congestion on Mars Hill Road and voted against, as did Commissioner Margaret Hale. Citizens turned out in number once again to try to protect the Windy Creek neighborhood.

Oconee County didn't have to rezone Epps Bridge Parkway for commercial development. It did so to increase tax revenues and to allow a few land owners and developers to become wealthy. The consequence is a congested road, congestion that no doubt will be used to argue for construction of additional roads. Unless they are protected as traffic arteries, rather than sites of development, the cycle will continue.

Oconee County has government of the developer, by the developer and for the developer. Your newspaper, through superficial, uncritical coverage, serves as the mouthpiece of those interests, rather than an independent, critical voice.